1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,000,000 to D, June 29, 2002, with due date set as of June 29, 2005, and lent KRW 8,000,000 on January 28, 2003 as due date for repayment set as of January 28, 2006, and the Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed each of the above obligations, barring any dispute. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay each of the above guaranteed obligations to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

2. The defendants' defenses and the plaintiff's defenses

A. Since the defendants' defenses that the above guaranteed obligation had expired by the statute of limitations, the defendants' defense was proved to have been extinguished by the statute of limitations, as seen earlier, the fact that the period of repayment of the above obligation was June 29, 2005 and January 28, 2006, respectively, was the same as mentioned above. Since it is apparent that the plaintiff's payment order of this case was filed on December 18, 2015, which was five years after the above, the above claim had already expired by the statute of limitations prior to the application for the payment order of this case.

Therefore, the defendants' defense is justified.

B. As to the determination on the Plaintiff’s re-appeal, the Plaintiff re-claimed that the statute of limitations has not elapsed since D, the primary debtor, was interrupted from the time when D filed a petition for bankruptcy on December 19, 2009 to January 4, 201 when the decision to grant bankruptcy exemption became final and conclusive, and the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order before five years have elapsed since it was re-claimed.

On the other hand, Article 171 of the Civil Act provides that participation in bankruptcy procedures shall be a cause for interrupting the extinctive prescription. Article 32 subparagraph 2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) also provides that participation in bankruptcy procedures shall have the effect of interrupting prescription. In general, participation in bankruptcy procedures means that an obligee files a report on his/her claim to join a bankruptcy estate in accordance with Article 32 subparagraph 2 of the Act and Article 447 of the Act. The fact that an obligee was declared bankrupt does not constitute a cause interrupting prescription and does not constitute a cause interrupting prescription.